Those are just power amplifiers. Even if your signal routing is purely digital from source to amp (not uncommon at all these days) something still has to drive the speakers. We don't have digital ears...

...yet...

I know what I'm looking at.

I did a lot of work with Audio shops from around here. This was about itwasntme's issues with his computer. It's all completely digital and you jumped in to talk about something completely unrelated.

What you don't understand is that you're factually incorrect and actually don't understand the nuances of your own field. Yes, it's an analog signal that the speakers are bouncing around, but do you not understand your own god damned field? Digital is so much more precise than analog. Having a digital signal all the way to the amplifier will still be a million times more precise than going digital - analog - digital and then analog to the speakers.

Digital is so much more precise than analog. Having a digital signal all the way to the amplifier will still be a million times more precise than going digital - analog - digital and then analog to the speakers.

When did I say that isn't an option? Where? You're flipping me a bunch of **** over something I've never claimed.

The point of contention was "pros split their video and audio". Obviously at a certain scale this becomes necessary.

The analog vs. digital thing is something you and goodlun brought up.

Note that I agreed with you when you mentioned that running a signal through multiple da/ad conversions is a shitty way to send signal. Don't get me confused with some kind of anti digital ludite. AFA I'm concerned it's moot point. When dealing with a computer the signal source is digital. Keeping it that way down the chain is optimal.

Those amps BTW take digital AES/EBU, not HDMI. Just try to live with it if you can. :p

When did I say that isn't an option? Where? You're flipping me a bunch of **** over something I've never claimed.

The point of contention was "pros split their video and audio". Obviously at a certain scale this becomes necessary.

The analog vs. digital thing is something you and goodlun brought up.

Note that I agreed with you when you mentioned that running a signal through multiple da/ad conversions is a shitty way to send signal. Don't get me confused with some kind of anti digital ludite. AFA I'm concerned it's moot point. When dealing with a computer the signal source is digital. Keeping it that way down the chain is optimal.

Those amps BTW take digital AES/EBU, not HDMI. Just try to live with it if you can. :p

You are the one who said that proper audio/visual setup is through components. Which is not true and doesn't make sense anyway because at no point would you split a digital audio/visual from the source. That's stupid. You were suggesting that he continue to split the audio/visual from his PC because, "pros splits their audio and video."

Of course, you never acknowledged at what point this was actually when a "pro" would do it. I'll FYI you right now in that a pro would never split the audio/video from a media server. A pro would pull the HDMI to the television and go from there out to the receiver.

It sounds more like you were just trying to shoehorn your car audio bullshit into this thread to seem relevant. Which you aren't because we were talking about car audio.

Since his Video signal is a VGA, it seems kind of inane to run it into an HDMI signal expressly for the purposes of plugging it into his TV, when he could just go straight from VGA out on his Video card to VGA in on his tv.

Same thing with his audio signal.

Since his PC is ultimately putting out an analogue Video signal AND an analogue Audio signal, it makes the most sense to me to run analogue direct to analogue. Sure, some new PC hardware might yield him a digital A/V signal via HDMI, it's unlikely he could plug that into his amplifier unless his amp has an HDMI in/out.

With a VGA cable at $10 price and an audio cable at $5 price, (and every likelihood that he already owns a VGA->VGA cable) it seems to me to not only be a cost-effective solution, RCA is more likely to work on a broader spectrum of amplifiers (which I'm betting will include the amp he's using), and if he's not using an amp - VGA+RCA will work just fine directly on his television too.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat, but I assert that what I'm suggesting is the easiest.

Secondly, you never answered the question where you would have media that simultaneously produced high quality video and high quality audio at the same time, where splitting them both would be necessary.

Originally Posted by Colin

Since his Video signal is a VGA, it seems kind of inane to run it into an HDMI signal expressly for the purposes of plugging it into his TV, when he could just go straight from VGA out on his Video card to VGA in on his tv.

Same thing with his audio signal.

Since his PC is ultimately putting out an analogue Video signal AND an analogue Audio signal, it makes the most sense to me to run analogue direct to analogue. Sure, some new PC hardware might yield him a digital A/V signal via HDMI, it's unlikely he could plug that into his amplifier unless his amp has an HDMI in/out.

With a VGA cable at $10 price and an audio cable at $5 price, (and every likelihood that he already owns a VGA->VGA cable) it seems to me to not only be a cost-effective solution, RCA is more likely to work on a broader spectrum of amplifiers (which I'm betting will include the amp he's using), and if he's not using an amp - VGA+RCA will work just fine directly on his television too.

There's always more than one way to skin a cat, but I assert that what I'm suggesting is the easiest.

Nope. HDMI capable video cards can be had for $20 off of newegg.

It cuts down the amount of cables and ups the quality of sound and video expressed through the source.